Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
This topic is locked
but...but...Maybe the current administration isn't as suave at answering questions as Clinton, maybe Bush hasn't figured out what "is" "is" yet. :idiot
Who Think Clinton Should Have Punched That Reporter
Back to top
#42
Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:21 AM
It's funny, because most of the fallacy that is 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton's lack of foreign policy and his agenda being more on the isolationist side of the spectrum. Sure, he did wonders for the country at home while in office but he ignored the world (mis)happenings too much. People tend to ignore that aspect though, because the economy was up and money is all that people care about in this country.
Plus, it's easier to blame Bush. The elementaries can crack jokes more easily about Bush than they can about Clinton.
And for the record, I voted Clinton both terms. I too failed to realize at the time that foreign affairs were being nearly totally neglected. I guess the difference is, that I now realize it instead of living under this delusion that Bush was the sole reason that 9/11 happened after being in office for merely months. Yes, the man has his faults and whine about it all day, I couldn't care less. But when it comes to 9/11 the only one who's getting a free pass is Clinton.
Newsflash people, he wouldn't get so worked up if he knew he was innocent and knew in his heart of hearts that he didn't own a slice of that pie.
Plus, it's easier to blame Bush. The elementaries can crack jokes more easily about Bush than they can about Clinton.
And for the record, I voted Clinton both terms. I too failed to realize at the time that foreign affairs were being nearly totally neglected. I guess the difference is, that I now realize it instead of living under this delusion that Bush was the sole reason that 9/11 happened after being in office for merely months. Yes, the man has his faults and whine about it all day, I couldn't care less. But when it comes to 9/11 the only one who's getting a free pass is Clinton.
Newsflash people, he wouldn't get so worked up if he knew he was innocent and knew in his heart of hearts that he didn't own a slice of that pie.
#43
Posted 03 October 2006 - 10:32 AM
Anotherbrainwashedbaffoon :
It's funny, because most of the fallacy that is 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton's lack of foreign policy and his agenda being more on the isolationist side of the spectrum. Sure, he did wonders for the country at home while in office but he ignored the world (mis)happenings too much. People tend to ignore that aspect though, because the economy was up and money is all that people care about in this country.
Plus, it's easier to blame Bush. The elementaries can crack jokes more easily about Bush than they can about Clinton.
And for the record, I voted Clinton both terms. I too failed to realize at the time that foreign affairs were being nearly totally neglected. I guess the difference is, that I now realize it instead of living under this delusion that Bush was the sole reason that 9/11 happened after being in office for merely months. Yes, the man has his faults and whine about it all day, I couldn't care less. But when it comes to 9/11 the only one who's getting a free pass is Clinton.
Newsflash people, he wouldn't get so worked up if he knew he was innocent and knew in his heart of hearts that he didn't own a slice of that pie.
It's funny, because most of the fallacy that is 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton's lack of foreign policy and his agenda being more on the isolationist side of the spectrum. Sure, he did wonders for the country at home while in office but he ignored the world (mis)happenings too much. People tend to ignore that aspect though, because the economy was up and money is all that people care about in this country.
Plus, it's easier to blame Bush. The elementaries can crack jokes more easily about Bush than they can about Clinton.
And for the record, I voted Clinton both terms. I too failed to realize at the time that foreign affairs were being nearly totally neglected. I guess the difference is, that I now realize it instead of living under this delusion that Bush was the sole reason that 9/11 happened after being in office for merely months. Yes, the man has his faults and whine about it all day, I couldn't care less. But when it comes to 9/11 the only one who's getting a free pass is Clinton.
Newsflash people, he wouldn't get so worked up if he knew he was innocent and knew in his heart of hearts that he didn't own a slice of that pie.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3592217964261572444 Take that Fucking Fox.
Rice Ignored bin Laden Warnings Prior to 9/11
Richard Clarke was right. So was Paul O'Neill. During the six months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration paid little attention to the threat from al-Qaeda and instead set the stage for a war with Iraq.
Two weeks before 9/11, national security wasn't even a top priority for the Bush administration. Security - job security, health security and national security - was last on a list of major issues Bush planned to deal with in the fall of 2001, according to a transcript of a speech Bush gave on August 31, 2001, to celebrate the launch of the White House's new web site.
Clarke exposed the Bush administration's attitude toward Islamic terrorists in his book Against All Enemies and said the Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq in the months leading up to 9/11. Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, made similar accusations in the book The Price of Loyalty, and he, like Clarke, was branded a liar and a disgruntled former White House employee by administration officials.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in an attempt to rewrite history, told the New York Post in a wide-ranging interview this week that the Clinton administration had failed to leave a comprehensive plan in place for the incoming Bush administration on how to deal with bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization - a patently false accusation that smacks of election-season politics at play.
The Rice interview with the New York Post has received a considerable amount of attention in mainstream media circles during the past week and has once again raised questions about who should bear the blame for failing to act on the threat posed by bin Laden - Bush or Clinton.
Rice's assertion that the Bush White House acted swiftly against al-Qaeda is disingenuous at best. An extensive search of more than 400 news stories available on Lexis Nexus between January 1 and September 10, 2001, show that Rice never once spoke about the threat posed by al-Qaeda or its leader Osama bin Laden.
When Rice discussed terrorism in public speeches and interviews in 2001, she applied the word "terrorism" to nations such as Iraq, and then followed it up by promoting President Bush's National Missile Defense strategy. The White House wanted to build a missile defense system to defend the United States against small-scale missile attack by so-called rogue states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran.
As early as January 2000, Rice was trying to sell a war with Iraq. It was then that she wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine titled "Campaign 2000 - Promoting the National Interest," in which she promotes regime change in Iraq, but fails to mention threats from Islamic fundamentalist groups such as al-Qaeda.
"As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them."
Rice echoed that line in August 2000, during an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, in which she said Iraq posed the gravest threat to the US and the world.
"The containment of Iraq should be aimed ultimately at regime change, because as long as Saddam is there no one in the region is safe - most especially his own people," she said during the August 9, 2000, interview. "If Saddam gives you a reason to use force against him, then use decisive force, not just a pinprick."
On July 29, 2001, Rice was interviewed by CNN's John King. She was asked how the United States would respond to missiles Iraq fired at US war planes patrolling the no-fly zones. She didn't mince words with her answer.
"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly," Rice said. "And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
"But I can be certain of this, and the world can be certain of this: Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration. The administration is working hard with a number of our friends and allies to have a policy that is broad; that does look at the sanctions as something that should be restructured so that we have smart sanctions that go after the regime, not after the Iraqi people; that does look at the role of opposition in creating an environment and a regime in Baghdad that the people of Iraq deserve, rather than the one that they have; and one that looks at use of military force in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day."
The question of whether the Bush administration targeted Iraq prior to 9/11 has long been the center of heated debate between Democrats and Republicans. The Bush administration says Iraq was not in its crosshairs prior to 9/11. But former White House officials, such as Clarke and O'Neill, claim the administration was searching for reasons to attack Iraq as soon as Bush took office in January 2001.
A January 11, 2001, article in the New York Times, "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets With Joint Chiefs," should finally put an end to that debate.
"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," reads the first paragraph of the Times article.
Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The Times reported that "about half of the 75-minute meeting ... focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area' Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said."
"Iraqi policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."
On June 22, 2001, President Bush spoke briefly about terrorism during a speech in Alabama, but, like Rice, Bush uses the word "terrorist" to describe rogue nations, not terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, and to gain support for his National Missile Defense policy.
"It's time to come together and to think about a new security arrangement that addresses the threats of the 21st century," Bush said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
"And the threats of the 21st century will be terrorist in nature, terror when it comes to weaponry. What we must do - freedom-loving people must be willing to think differently and develop anti-ballistic missile systems that will say to rogue nations and leaders who cannot stand America, or what we stand for: you will not blackmail us, nor will you blackmail our allies."
Clarke was right. Our government failed us. Worse, they lied too.
Richard Clarke was right. So was Paul O'Neill. During the six months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration paid little attention to the threat from al-Qaeda and instead set the stage for a war with Iraq.
Two weeks before 9/11, national security wasn't even a top priority for the Bush administration. Security - job security, health security and national security - was last on a list of major issues Bush planned to deal with in the fall of 2001, according to a transcript of a speech Bush gave on August 31, 2001, to celebrate the launch of the White House's new web site.
Clarke exposed the Bush administration's attitude toward Islamic terrorists in his book Against All Enemies and said the Bush administration was obsessed with Iraq in the months leading up to 9/11. Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary, made similar accusations in the book The Price of Loyalty, and he, like Clarke, was branded a liar and a disgruntled former White House employee by administration officials.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in an attempt to rewrite history, told the New York Post in a wide-ranging interview this week that the Clinton administration had failed to leave a comprehensive plan in place for the incoming Bush administration on how to deal with bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization - a patently false accusation that smacks of election-season politics at play.
The Rice interview with the New York Post has received a considerable amount of attention in mainstream media circles during the past week and has once again raised questions about who should bear the blame for failing to act on the threat posed by bin Laden - Bush or Clinton.
Rice's assertion that the Bush White House acted swiftly against al-Qaeda is disingenuous at best. An extensive search of more than 400 news stories available on Lexis Nexus between January 1 and September 10, 2001, show that Rice never once spoke about the threat posed by al-Qaeda or its leader Osama bin Laden.
When Rice discussed terrorism in public speeches and interviews in 2001, she applied the word "terrorism" to nations such as Iraq, and then followed it up by promoting President Bush's National Missile Defense strategy. The White House wanted to build a missile defense system to defend the United States against small-scale missile attack by so-called rogue states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran.
As early as January 2000, Rice was trying to sell a war with Iraq. It was then that she wrote an article for Foreign Affairs magazine titled "Campaign 2000 - Promoting the National Interest," in which she promotes regime change in Iraq, but fails to mention threats from Islamic fundamentalist groups such as al-Qaeda.
"As history marches toward markets and democracy, some states have been left by the side of the road. Iraq is the prototype. Saddam Hussein's regime is isolated, his conventional military power has been severely weakened, his people live in poverty and terror, and he has no useful place in international politics. He is therefore determined to develop WMD. Nothing will change until Saddam is gone, so the United States must mobilize whatever resources it can, including support from his opposition, to remove him. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them."
Rice echoed that line in August 2000, during an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, in which she said Iraq posed the gravest threat to the US and the world.
"The containment of Iraq should be aimed ultimately at regime change, because as long as Saddam is there no one in the region is safe - most especially his own people," she said during the August 9, 2000, interview. "If Saddam gives you a reason to use force against him, then use decisive force, not just a pinprick."
On July 29, 2001, Rice was interviewed by CNN's John King. She was asked how the United States would respond to missiles Iraq fired at US war planes patrolling the no-fly zones. She didn't mince words with her answer.
"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly," Rice said. "And he has reserved the right to respond when that threat becomes one that he wishes no longer to tolerate."
"But I can be certain of this, and the world can be certain of this: Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration. The administration is working hard with a number of our friends and allies to have a policy that is broad; that does look at the sanctions as something that should be restructured so that we have smart sanctions that go after the regime, not after the Iraqi people; that does look at the role of opposition in creating an environment and a regime in Baghdad that the people of Iraq deserve, rather than the one that they have; and one that looks at use of military force in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day."
The question of whether the Bush administration targeted Iraq prior to 9/11 has long been the center of heated debate between Democrats and Republicans. The Bush administration says Iraq was not in its crosshairs prior to 9/11. But former White House officials, such as Clarke and O'Neill, claim the administration was searching for reasons to attack Iraq as soon as Bush took office in January 2001.
A January 11, 2001, article in the New York Times, "Iraq Is Focal Point as Bush Meets With Joint Chiefs," should finally put an end to that debate.
"George W. Bush, the nation's commander in chief to be, went to the Pentagon today for a top-secret session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to review hot spots around the world where he might have to send American forces into harm's way," reads the first paragraph of the Times article.
Bush was joined at the Pentagon meeting by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The Times reported that "about half of the 75-minute meeting ... focused on a discussion about Iraq and the Persian Gulf, two participants said. Iraq was the first topic briefed because 'it's the most visible and most risky area' Mr. Bush will confront after he takes office, one senior officer said."
"Iraqi policy is very much on his mind," one senior Pentagon official told the Times. "Saddam was clearly a discussion point."
On June 22, 2001, President Bush spoke briefly about terrorism during a speech in Alabama, but, like Rice, Bush uses the word "terrorist" to describe rogue nations, not terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, and to gain support for his National Missile Defense policy.
"It's time to come together and to think about a new security arrangement that addresses the threats of the 21st century," Bush said, according to a transcript of his remarks.
"And the threats of the 21st century will be terrorist in nature, terror when it comes to weaponry. What we must do - freedom-loving people must be willing to think differently and develop anti-ballistic missile systems that will say to rogue nations and leaders who cannot stand America, or what we stand for: you will not blackmail us, nor will you blackmail our allies."
Clarke was right. Our government failed us. Worse, they lied too.
#44
Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:41 AM
Bla bla bla.
In the end its politics as usual. Clinton continues to act like Clinton, we just got to see more of his childish tantrum side during the interview. There will be the blame game of everybody on BOTH sides wearing the spectacles of 20/20 Hine site +1. Its as easy to blame Clinton for 9/11 as it is to blame Bush. The only difference is Clinton had 8 years to do NOTHING, and Bush had two and was in office when it happened. I think 9/11 came down to the idea that the storyteller had not mentioned anything about hijacked planes flying into buildings. Think about this though, what if at the very start of Bush’s administration he said OK we are going to increase security throughout the nation and on international flights to what we are doing right now. Every liberal would be screaming “Big Brother, Big Brother, Big Brother”, then if 9/11 happened anyway they would be screaming that Bush Knew and he didn’t do enough.
I think if Clinton had done more, 9/11 may not have happened as soon, very remotely not at all.
The article mentions above wants to draw more attention to the Bush administration wanting to invade Iraq from the start of their tenure. I hate reading articles that are biased. Everybody hates Fox news cause they are “so far right” but rarely stop to consider that the news they have been watching for so long is just as biased.
In the end its politics as usual. Clinton continues to act like Clinton, we just got to see more of his childish tantrum side during the interview. There will be the blame game of everybody on BOTH sides wearing the spectacles of 20/20 Hine site +1. Its as easy to blame Clinton for 9/11 as it is to blame Bush. The only difference is Clinton had 8 years to do NOTHING, and Bush had two and was in office when it happened. I think 9/11 came down to the idea that the storyteller had not mentioned anything about hijacked planes flying into buildings. Think about this though, what if at the very start of Bush’s administration he said OK we are going to increase security throughout the nation and on international flights to what we are doing right now. Every liberal would be screaming “Big Brother, Big Brother, Big Brother”, then if 9/11 happened anyway they would be screaming that Bush Knew and he didn’t do enough.
I think if Clinton had done more, 9/11 may not have happened as soon, very remotely not at all.
The article mentions above wants to draw more attention to the Bush administration wanting to invade Iraq from the start of their tenure. I hate reading articles that are biased. Everybody hates Fox news cause they are “so far right” but rarely stop to consider that the news they have been watching for so long is just as biased.
#45
Posted 03 October 2006 - 11:46 AM
I love how if its not your views, the other person must be brain-washed. If you want to appear to hold a shred of knowledge, avoid the cliche (and childish) brainwashed comments. I'm a registered independent and pride myself on taking all sides and making my own conclusions. I don't accept what Fox tells me, nor do I accept what CNN or MSNBC tells me. You on the other hand, obviously...
Regardless, so you posted a video that was an outline of already posting videos. Great. And this was a counterpoint how? Because Clinton supposedly tried to stop Osama Bin Laden... because he says so? Shit, I can say I tried to stop Osama Bin Laden. Go and try to find some information on just how Clinton worked towards capturing and stoping Bin Laden. Unless neglect is somehow a strategic strike, I just don't see it.
Then what? You post some article, ignoring the fact that it's not referenced (and probably conviently so) and it's extremely biased with its own agenda. Regardless, so the "threat" wasn't put on high alert. Perhaps you don't know the process, but administrations recieve multitudes of reports of possible threats every week. There's no way to realistically respond to every single terror threat they are handed (which is an unfortunate reality; too many people in this world are just fucked up). If the FBI or CIA felt that the report was possible enough, they would have evacuated the area of the WTC and closed down operations.
Now was the situation neglected? Sure, in the sense that they didn't go balls to the wall with and drop everything else in the process. But so have millions of other reports that never came to fruition. To what magnitude was it neglected? I don't know, you don't know, and as much as the author of that "article" would suggest otherwise, he doesn't know. The fact is, we don't really know how situations are dealt with. We don't know the protocol to dealing with a terror threat (I assure you its more complex than 4 or 5 colors), so we aren't in a position to say this situation was treated any differently than any other threat the US has ever recieved. We know nothing of the classified reports given to Clinton's Administration and what they did to avoid it. 9/11 happened, and thus it shoved into the lime light. People (and more specifically liberals) like to glorify the fact that there was inside knowledge yet nothing was done, but ask those people what's usually done when they are handed a report, what the protocol is, and they become dumbfounded pretty fast.
No single entity was to blame for 9/11. It didn't happen over the course of a handful of months. 9/11 was planned by Al-Qaeda for years. There are many people and many administrations who hold a piece of the fallacy pie. And before the next lolbrainwashed ignorant comment whooshes in, yes Bush and his Adminstration are one of those. The Bush administration is not only to blame, the Clinton administration is not to blame, hell George the first isn't even to blame... they all are. They all fucked up. Republicans and Democrats all failed to prevent it.
Which leads to the question, how do you prevent it anyway?
QFT
It's always humorous when someone attacks FOX news for being oh so right-winged and then you ask them what they're news source is and they'll try and sound sophisticated and say the BBC or some online Liberal site.
Regardless, so you posted a video that was an outline of already posting videos. Great. And this was a counterpoint how? Because Clinton supposedly tried to stop Osama Bin Laden... because he says so? Shit, I can say I tried to stop Osama Bin Laden. Go and try to find some information on just how Clinton worked towards capturing and stoping Bin Laden. Unless neglect is somehow a strategic strike, I just don't see it.
Then what? You post some article, ignoring the fact that it's not referenced (and probably conviently so) and it's extremely biased with its own agenda. Regardless, so the "threat" wasn't put on high alert. Perhaps you don't know the process, but administrations recieve multitudes of reports of possible threats every week. There's no way to realistically respond to every single terror threat they are handed (which is an unfortunate reality; too many people in this world are just fucked up). If the FBI or CIA felt that the report was possible enough, they would have evacuated the area of the WTC and closed down operations.
Now was the situation neglected? Sure, in the sense that they didn't go balls to the wall with and drop everything else in the process. But so have millions of other reports that never came to fruition. To what magnitude was it neglected? I don't know, you don't know, and as much as the author of that "article" would suggest otherwise, he doesn't know. The fact is, we don't really know how situations are dealt with. We don't know the protocol to dealing with a terror threat (I assure you its more complex than 4 or 5 colors), so we aren't in a position to say this situation was treated any differently than any other threat the US has ever recieved. We know nothing of the classified reports given to Clinton's Administration and what they did to avoid it. 9/11 happened, and thus it shoved into the lime light. People (and more specifically liberals) like to glorify the fact that there was inside knowledge yet nothing was done, but ask those people what's usually done when they are handed a report, what the protocol is, and they become dumbfounded pretty fast.
No single entity was to blame for 9/11. It didn't happen over the course of a handful of months. 9/11 was planned by Al-Qaeda for years. There are many people and many administrations who hold a piece of the fallacy pie. And before the next lolbrainwashed ignorant comment whooshes in, yes Bush and his Adminstration are one of those. The Bush administration is not only to blame, the Clinton administration is not to blame, hell George the first isn't even to blame... they all are. They all fucked up. Republicans and Democrats all failed to prevent it.
Which leads to the question, how do you prevent it anyway?
Everybody hates Fox news cause they are “so far right” but rarely stop to consider that the news they have been watching for so long is just as biased.
QFT
It's always humorous when someone attacks FOX news for being oh so right-winged and then you ask them what they're news source is and they'll try and sound sophisticated and say the BBC or some online Liberal site.
#46
Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:02 PM
its just as silly to call other news programs liberal. it doesnt exist it is propaganda. the right wing is trying to get people to listen to conservative radio and tv programs and confuse editorial for "news". its a joke and intelligent people are seeing through it. i've come to realize conservative is another word for "complete dumbass". i certainly feel like one for voting red 2000-2008. never again.
#47
Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:08 PM
Sabastian:
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Hmmm... a statement about WMD's in reference to Iraq!? Be sure to note who that quote is from.
Clinton didn't take care of the problem in Iraq either but he sure made a good case for needing to do something about it. A couple years later Bush gets into office and then Iraq is suddenly not an issue anymore. How stupid do you think people are?
You quote a book written by an opposition party's presidential candidate and then call Fox News biased!?
Wow, that might fool idiots who aren't paying attention but most people aren't that stupid.
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Hmmm... a statement about WMD's in reference to Iraq!? Be sure to note who that quote is from.
Clinton didn't take care of the problem in Iraq either but he sure made a good case for needing to do something about it. A couple years later Bush gets into office and then Iraq is suddenly not an issue anymore. How stupid do you think people are?
You quote a book written by an opposition party's presidential candidate and then call Fox News biased!?
Wow, that might fool idiots who aren't paying attention but most people aren't that stupid.
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
its just as silly to call other news programs liberal. it doesnt exist it is propaganda. the right wing is trying to get people to listen to conservative radio and tv programs and confuse editorial for "news". its a joke and intelligent people are seeing through it. i've come to realize conservative is another word for "complete dumbass". i certainly feel like one for voting red 2000-2008. never again.
#48
Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:14 PM
All news is propaganda, doesn't matter where you live or where you get your news. It is all biased in one way or another. The only truth you can halfway draw from a news outlet is the barest basic facts of a story. When they start describing events you might as well turn the channel, because which side they are on, will decide how the story is told. I say lets put all politicians in a boxing ring and let them duke it out...
#49
Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:25 PM
Ictoanius :
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
nar i feel like a dumbass for posting political discourse in a mmo forum but yeh i obviously got that one wrong. i guess it just feels like 8 years.
#50
Posted 03 October 2006 - 12:29 PM
Keel republicans, keel democracts. Bring in Communism!!!!!!!
#51
Posted 03 October 2006 - 01:05 PM
Stegan :
no. we won't ever being saying 'bush was a god compared to _________'.
OT: you notice billy corgan is wearing his own band's t shirt in those photos? >__>
no. we won't ever being saying 'bush was a god compared to _________'.
OT: you notice billy corgan is wearing his own band's t shirt in those photos? >__>
I know. I was just kidding.
EDIT: "S" emblem : Superman :: ZERO T-shirt : Billy Corgan
#52
Posted 03 October 2006 - 02:58 PM
(sonos)
nar i feel like a dumbass for posting political discourse in a mmo forum
i dont think its that dumb. the fact that this site is a place for MMO gamers just means that on some level we are 'peers' even though we may be separated by social orders, nation states, distance, and age.
political discourse with peers is good. i get your point that it is somewhat out of place for the mission of KI but this *is* FW.
#53
Posted 03 October 2006 - 04:39 PM
to that i give you this popular emoticon:
;
;
#54
Posted 03 October 2006 - 09:13 PM
I find it funny that no one even thought about Clinton, at least not to my knowledge, before that whole Disney Propaganda peice of Fiction. But if you're gonna point blame about what a previous administration didn't do when they left, at least have the nerve to have done something since you came.
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
Ictoanius :
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
#55
Posted 04 October 2006 - 01:48 AM
Evilblackdragon :
Keel republicans, keel democracts. Bring in Communism!!!!!!!
Keel republicans, keel democracts. Bring in Communism!!!!!!!
Lokky4Prez
#56
Posted 04 October 2006 - 07:09 AM
Layne :
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
Ictoanius :
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
he just seemed so happy at such a monumental victory over my mistake...i didnt want to take that away from him.
:blush
#57
Posted 04 October 2006 - 09:37 AM
Sonos :
he just seemed so happy at such a monumental victory over my mistake...i didnt want to take that away from him.
:blush
Layne :
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
Ictoanius :
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Edit: Sonos If I was you I'd feel like a dumb-ass for saying you already voted in 2006-2008. It's October 3, 2006 right now.... LOL
Technically, he could've said that he meant the 2004-2008 presidential election. In which case he could've easily blasted you for making such a stupid comment. Perhaps maybe throwing in a joke about reminding him to vote in the Presidential mid-term elections or something to that effect...
But he already apologized...so...yea.
he just seemed so happy at such a monumental victory over my mistake...i didnt want to take that away from him.
:blush
If we want to get this stoked up I could start talking about how a liberal needs to twist things around to make it sound like even a simple honest mistake is somehow not thier fault and the one who pointed it out in good fun becomes the villian but that's only if we want to stoke things up...
#58
Posted 04 October 2006 - 09:50 AM
i'm always ready to stoke things up. i didnt say it wasnt my fault. but i certainly dont care about typing 2008. i'm only newly liberal by the way which i stated earlier. the republicans being the worst thing for this country imaginable every time they gain full power pushed me in that direction.
unless you are pro child molester i guess with your guy foley. then republicans are probably pretty awesome.
unless you are pro child molester i guess with your guy foley. then republicans are probably pretty awesome.
#59
Posted 04 October 2006 - 10:14 AM
Sonos :
i'm always ready to stoke things up. i didnt say it wasnt my fault. but i certainly dont care about typing 2008. i'm only newly liberal by the way which i stated earlier. the republicans being the worst thing for this country imaginable every time they gain full power pushed me in that direction.
unless you are pro child molester i guess with your guy foley. then republicans are probably pretty awesome.
i'm always ready to stoke things up. i didnt say it wasnt my fault. but i certainly dont care about typing 2008. i'm only newly liberal by the way which i stated earlier. the republicans being the worst thing for this country imaginable every time they gain full power pushed me in that direction.
unless you are pro child molester i guess with your guy foley. then republicans are probably pretty awesome.
Yeah I guess you got the liberal thing down. You don't have an actually reason behind what you say about the Republicans and then move right into an ignorant generalization about them. Way to go Sonos.
Foley resigned under threat of being kicked out on his arse. He never actually had anything more than the IM contact with the 16 year old and 16 is the age of consent in DC so they couldn't arrest him. Getting rid of that freak was the right thing to do. Of course these are facts so as a liberal you need to put you fingers in your ears and yell loud enough so you don't hear them. You need to focus on your false premis that Republicans support child molestors.
Good luck.
#60
Posted 04 October 2006 - 10:18 AM
Tonight on Fox News:
Did Clinton do everything he could to stop Hurricane Katrina?
The Bush Administration's own Weather Expert will talk to us tonight about how Clinton could have stepped up efforts to prevent this catastrophe from occuring.
Next week:
Was it really the Jews who killed Jesus?
Did Clinton do everything he could to stop Hurricane Katrina?
The Bush Administration's own Weather Expert will talk to us tonight about how Clinton could have stepped up efforts to prevent this catastrophe from occuring.
Next week:
Was it really the Jews who killed Jesus?
